Often it’s a doctor who got them started, not a dealer.
I feel pretty strongly that SOME drugs should be controlled. Antibiotics, for sure. Fentynyl and other highly potent opiates. And I’d strongly support age limits on purchases and taxes high enough to make them unattractive to non-addicts. Make treatment programs cheaper than continuing to feed an addiction, for sure.
Legal doesn’t have to mean piles of cheap heroin everywhere.
Antibiotics is the clearest case, because it’s not like people will do crazy things to get their black market antibiotic fix, and overuse of antibiotics increases risk of harm to other people just like some illegal drugs do. I’m not sure how much other medicinal drugs should be regulated but they should at least be rigorously held to any medical claims they make.
Right. I mean, given our fucked up Healthcare system, legalizing all drugs would probably lead to people who can’t afford to go to a doctor to see if they have high blood pressure or whatever start self-medicating. Maybe that means those people can get help. Maybe it means they will accidentally kill themselves.
Anti-depressants and other psychoactive drugs are another areas with the potential for disaster.
In this scenario there won’t be drug dealers giving people just a taste. Sure, maybe someone’s older friend might give them a taste from their personal stash. If drugs were legal, though, the shady guy in a trench coat hanging out on a street corner will be replaced by the person working the checkout line at Wal-mart.
And yes, I’m with most of you all, and in favor of legalizing it all. Use some of the money saved to fund treatment programs. There will likely still be some huge savings even after that. As far as any restrictions, I’d mirror the current alcohol laws. I’d also ban advertising other than a basic notice by stores listing which substances they sell.
The problem with “legalize it all” is that the average person does NOT have the knowledge to be their own pharmacist or doctor. That’s why drug regulations were put into place in the early 20th Century. Some substances do require specialist knowledge to use safely.
I can’t agree with legalize everything for OTC. I am in favor of loosening things up considerably, but not a return to the 19th Century free-for-all.
My concern with everything legal OTC would be that pharma companies releasing drugs that are intended to be medicinal would just classify everything as recreational to skirt the FDA.
I don’t know if this would be unconstitutional, but if you could make it legal to sell heroin over the counter but completely illegal to advertise it on billboards, TV, radio or internet, it might be a good solution. Even if this was legal, I’m also not sure it would be practical to ban internet advertisement because I don’t think you could really stamp out things like trying to encourage a viral marketing campaign without directly telling people to buy your product. But in theory if there were a way to make it work I’d be in favor of that.
The argument is not about making everything legal and OTC. The argument is to eliminate criminal penalties for individuals being in possession of personal use amounts of any given substance. The prescription mechanism would not be eliminated. No one gets put in prison for having a pharmacy bottle of plavilifonexafil in their pocket.
Big pharma would not be able to skirt the FDA by classifying a drug as recreational because they still have to sell the drug on the market, which has rules (so far, anyway). It is legal for you to carry around a bottle of E-mycin, but that does not mean you can just go grab one off the shelf at Rexall.
These what-ifs are absurd strawmanning. We have a problem, and it is not that heroin or mescaline are being used by people. It is that drug laws are being used to create a class of criminals rather than trying to deal with the users’ issues and the societal problems that lead to substance abuse.
If the taxes are too high, here come the illegal dealers. Perhaps registered addicts could get prescriptions to buy them untaxed. Although we can all see problems with that. E.g. getting prescriptions from multiple doctors and then selling. I don’t know the perfect solution and I don’t think anyone does.
The real abusers of antibiotics are the farmers feeding them to livestock to get them to grow faster. Abuse by people is much less of a problem.
I don’t think we’d need high taxes. The amount of money we would save from lower prison, law enforcement, and court costs should vastly outweigh the need to raise revenue on taxes for meth, crack, or heroin.
You are making a common mistake here, confusing addiction with physical dependence. They are NOT the same thing.
As an example, if you are in a Horrible Accident and require a lot of surgery and painkillers you may become physically dependent on opiates but NOT have a psychological addiction. When such people heal up and recover they can end their use of opiates (usually with a medically supervised taper, but some opt for quicker methods) without relapse, cravings, or likelihood of going back to them.
Some people, of course, can’t - and even when such people are forcibly detoxed and have NO opiates in their system any longer, and are long past the time for withdrawal symptoms, will still desire to take opiates - because they are addicted. Even if they aren’t using. That’s why addicts in recovery use the term “in recovery” rather than “recovered” or “cured”, because for them it’s an ongoing problem even long after the physical part is over an done.
Addiction is a psychological state, not a physical one, even if physical dependence on a substance is what led to that psychological state.
That’s why you can be addicted to things like gambling or sex which, like marijuana, do not have an LD50 or lead to overdose.
You very much can be addicted to marijuana/cannabis
Just because it’s “only” a psychological state does not make it any less damaging. There are people whose use of cannabis becomes harmful - maybe for financial reasons, maybe for being so preoccupied with it that professional and social aspects of life suffer. That is no less damaging than a gambling addiction, or a sexual addition, or various other addictions that one can suffer from.
The notion that cannabis is only beneficial, that there is no harm whatsoever, and that one can’t become addicted to it is one of the most pernicious and persistent myths on the “legalize drugs” side of this argument.
Mind you, I’m not a Prohibitionist. I’m in favor of legalizing marijuana and view that legalizing it, assuring purity and dosage, and taxing it would provide several benefits to society. Nonetheless, I recognize that if we legalize marijuana (or other drugs) there will be negatives as well as positives.
Sorry, yeah I know and agree totally with decriminalization. I was responding to the tangent on if we should take the further step of complete legalization.
Well, off of schedule one, we do have complete legalization. Legalization is far from the same thing as total unrestricted access.
I am seeing “resolved” in the title of this thread and a few others in Great Debates, but I’m not seeing a mod post saying when it was resolved, how, which side “won”, etc.
Right, I was responding to the tangent that started with Little Nemo saying we should legalize the sale of all drugs.
IME, I have only ever known one pothead who qualifies as an addict, in that he grows emotionally unstable without it.
As to the OP – puffcough* – hey, man, have you ever REALLY looked at the social costs of your drug-enforcement policies?!
I’ve known a couple more than that, but then, I used to work in the drug rehab field. Addiction to pot is not what I would call common, but it does occur, along with lung diseases that are a side effect of inhaling smoke of any sort.
Like most things strong enough to help you, pot is also strong enough to hurt you in the wrong circumstances.
Unfortunately I must agree with this argument. I wish it weren’t so, but I knew a bad example. He was a good friend and mathematical collaborator of mine. By 1970 we had written two very important papers together. But even by then, he was using marijuana more and more frequently. Pretty soon, he simply could not function without it. He had been a really fine mathematician (better than me for sure) and work deteriorated into junk and then into nonsense. He eventually sank into dementia and then died around 15 years ago in a long-term care home.
Despite this, I still have to believe that more harm is done to more people by keeping these drugs illegal. And the laws didn’t save my friend. As we know, they aren’t applied against whites.
Debates in GD are not competitive. They go on forever or until they expire from lack of interest.
I agree. But I also believe that is we make the choice to legalize it should be a fully informed choice.
The Breonna Taylor case is interesting, and makes me think BLM needs to pick their battles better.
Yes, it was a terrible tragedy, but if you examine the very long and somewhat redacted report, Breonna Taylor Summary-Redacted1
You will see the Police clearly had probable cause. That address was linked to drug deals. Taylors ex was a rather big time drug dealer, and she continued to be his friend. She was handling J Glover’s money for him.
So they announce, then smash (they smash in so fast after yelling Police !, that it is to be understood why nobody in the house heard the announcement) , one of them is shot, so they fire back. Taylor is killed. What exactly would the charges be against the cops? One cop is being charged with wanton endangerment oas his bullets went into another apt, but what would they charge the cop who killed Taylor with? He was shot at, he returned fire. It is a tragedy , not a murder.
If the Police were charged, they’d be exonerated.